Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
to provide a voice of the world. last week's european council agreed the overall limit on eu spending for the next seven years, starting in 2014. been agreed in the past, spending has gone up, but last week we agreed that spending should come down. by working with like-minded allies, we delivered a real- terms cut in what brussels can spend for the first time in history. as the house knows, the eu budget is negotiated annually, so what we were negotiating -- initially at the council last november and again last week -- was not the individual annual budgets, but rather the overall framework for the next seven years. this includes the overall ceilings on what can be spent -- effectively, the limit on the european union's credit card for the next seven years. during the last negotiation, which covered the period 2007 to 2013, the last government agreed to an 8% increase in the payments ceiling, to 943 billion. put simply, this gave the eu a credit card with a higher limit, and today we are still living with the results of allowing the eu's big spenders to push for more and more spending
nominee that refused to sign letters supporting israel and, refused to sign a letter asking the eu to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization and the list goes on and on and on but at the end of the day, this is the president's decision, i give him great discretion and can't believe one democratic colleague is not upset by this choice, enough to speak out. >> chris: now, one of the other things you want and you are using the nomination as leverage, is to get more information about benghazi, the president says that that is all about politics. take a look at this: >> president barack obama: we've had more testimony and more paper provided to congress than ever before, and, congress is sort of running out of things to ask. >> chris: question, tell me the single most important thing that after all of these months you still don't know about benghazi. >> pretty hard. let's start with after. we don't know who changed the talking points to take the references to al qaeda, or the talking points given to susan rice and don't know who the survivors of the attack are so congress can in
sanctions is by legislation, under the legislation, and then we have the e.u. sanctions and others that people follow mandated by the security council. the e.u. seems to be more flexible than we are, so there is operating room there. there is operating room in not putting more sanctions on the table could be helpful as an initial step. that would be important. each one of these the president would have to explain he is getting value, that the europeans to take sanctions off central banks and petroleum. that we could do things that i think are absolutely necessary. we have had a longstanding policy of not sanctioning food and medicine for good reasons, and when i was in the security council, in iraq we made them carefully. that got screwed up in oil for food, and i do not want to talk about that, but that was an example of how things could go wrong. the basis was the right basis and that even in the worst of all possible situations, you cannot punish the population, particularly, for the sins of their leaders, especially if they did not choose the leaders. we have a situation where
as a terrorist organization. the second thing, in 2006 you were one of 12 senators who refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the re
, but not much more than that. the eu is providing non-legal aid, i am wondering if the u.s. is considering this? and if you are ceding influence for the ron. afghanistan has asked u.s. troops to leave the province and i think within two weeks, can we get your comment on that? >> with respect to afghanistan, i understand the concerns they have expressed. appropriately, when a complaint they may have thought to be appropriately evaluated. they will be, i assure you. i have taken appropriate note and i have had a great deal of involvement in afghanistan with president karzai. there are evaluations of how things might have gone wrong or might have changed. we are working on a bilateral security arrangement and this transition process. we have had a very good conversation with the president. president obama talked to him before making announcements. we have listened very carefully to his observations about wanting to speed up the transition with respect to management of security. i can assure you that we are finely attuned to the needs of the afghan people, and the most effective ways to make this t
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)